C:ADM 2010 — International Conference July 30 – August 02 2010 with surrounding events: July 29-30 and August 03-05 EMPAC: Curtis R. Priem Experimental Media and Performing Arts Center Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, USA

Reviewed by Claudia Westermann Vienna University of Technology, Austria

Conferences often present a unique chance to become acquainted with the [...]]]> Cybernetics: Art, Design, Mathematics — A Meta-Disciplinary Conversation

C:ADM 2010 — International Conference
July 30 – August 02 2010
with surrounding events: July 29-30 and August 03-05
EMPAC: Curtis R. Priem Experimental Media and Performing Arts Center
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, USA

Reviewed by Claudia Westermann
Vienna University of Technology, Austria

Conferences often present a unique chance to become acquainted with the latest research in a specific field. Yet, the focus within the conventional set up is on the presentation of results related to a precedent research. In contrast, the international conference “C:ADM 2010 — Cybernetics: Art, Design, Mathematics” was an experiment in creating a framework capable of shifting the focus from results to process and, thus, in making the conference itself a laboratory for research. The event was held from July 30 to August 2 of 2010 at the Experimental Media and Performing Arts Center (EMPAC) in Troy, New York. Since the EMPAC has become well known for scheduling a unique and innovative program, it presented a good choice to make it the venue for a conference, to which the subtitle “A Meta-Disciplinary Conversation” explicitly suggested an intention to break with convention.

The conference was organized by the American Society for Cybernetics (ASC) in conjunction with the School of Architecture and the above mentioned EMPAC at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. It is due to the insight and understanding of the conference’s architect and always silently present steersman —Ranulph Glanville — as well as to the engagement of the other organizers [1] who acted on behalf of these various institutional bodies that the experiment in a participatory conference was successful in transferring the conversational model of meetings to a larger scale. A whole series of activities before and after the main conference was important in making the conversational format operate.

Weeks before the main event, the conference initiated online pre-conversations through its social network inspired web presence. The site, devised by Thomas Fischer was conducive in introducing the theme and the participatory framework. Preparations for the conference also included the creation of mobile objects — so called standards — that participants were asked to bring to the event. They were intended to serve as an additional entry to ideas and interests. On site, preceding activities included a business meeting of the ASC, a workshop on the state of cybernetics run by Stuart Umpleby, as well as tutorials in second order cybernetics. The latter were offered by members of the ASC and held in three parallel sessions. A workshop of three days was scheduled to succeed the main event. Participation in the workshop was open to those who were willing to engage in the preparation of a book dedicated to the conference and its outcomes. The framework thus introduced a flow of interactions that became more dense on the official conference days. It presented itself in the conceptual form of a conversation.

As Gordon Pask described it, and Ranulph Glanville [2] has elaborated on, conversation is non-deterministic interaction. It carries the meaning of learning. The question however is: in which kind of space can it develop? How can this space be framed?

It makes sense to look at this question from the range of overlapping viewpoints that the organizers had defined as art, design and mathematics. Both interested in the borders and possibilities of language, art and mathematics in this context are to be found as counterparts in a space that was once designed to let them meet. Within the transdisciplinary space of second order cybernetics, which is essentially concerned with the inclusion of the observer into a feedback system, questions of designing are not exclusively related to the disciplines that range from architectural to information design. They are at the core of every activity. Accordingly, the aggregate of roughly 80 participants in the conference included researchers with a practice or educational background in mathematics, art and design, yet, also included designers in the wider sense, with a strong relation to other disciplines, such as management, physiotherapy, sociology and anthropology.

A welcome party, followed by a work in progress presentation by EMPAC’s artist in residence Lars Jan opened the main event. It gave a first and impressive idea of how the conference may be related to its site. Speeches including by the local coordinator Ted Krueger and by the EMPAC’s director Johannes Goebel elaborated further on this context on the next morning, and described the role of the EMPAC as a place of initiation towards practice based research.

The conversational part of the conference began with a vocal rehearsal planned by Aartje Hulstein and Ranulph Glanville, and moderated by the latter. What started out as an exercise in singing changing vowels, and provoked in me for a short moment an allusion to ideas of peace in praise, managed quickly to make clear that this was not intended. With the task to catch the changing vowels of one’s neighbor, the exercise evolved into a strange piece of music. Willingness to listen and to give space to the other is seen as an essential condition for conversations to take place and to make them dynamic events to be remembered. The playback of two longer exercises listened/sung in the concert hall of the EMPAC allowed for an astonishing insight into the compositional qualities of conversational activity.

The conversation sessions in principle followed the structure of the introductory exercise. A theme and a set of instructions served to generate a conversation which was followed by the (re-)presentation of the conversation. In variation to the introductory exercise, the conversations took place in smaller working groups, and the conversation-presentation-cycle was iterated once. This series of events was run through twice on the basis of two different themes.

Theme 1 was facilitated by Timothy Jachna, and started a set of questions related to the terms “actual” and “abstract”:

“Moving from actual to abstract is understood; but how do we move from abstract to actual? What are the relations between models that are conceptual, computational and physical? How are the differences productive?”

In a short introductory talk, Paul Pangaro elaborated on this set of questions, and situated the theme within the history and theory of cybernetics. Thereafter, participants split into working groups for the afternoon, in order to refine the theme and to develop from it new questions. One or more members of the group were chosen to serve as rapporteur, and the group’s results were later presented to all participants. The following morning session re-addressed the theme in the working groups and again the results were reported back to all.

Theme 2, facilitated by Christiane M. Herr, followed the same schedule. A talk by Albert Müller introduced to a set of questions related to “cross-over processes” and the “trans-, inter-, or meta-disciplinary subject”.

This was the basic set up. It simulated a surprisingly facile access to a complex task. As a result, it was often astonishing how well the framing helped to generate meaningful conversations. The fact that the themes were not reduced to one basic question was most likely influential in allowing for the group conversations to take very different directions. The themes were well chosen to relate to the concerns of a theory of conversation, and it may be for this reason that they performed as an initiation to conversation. By all means, the framework led to a very intense conference, which engaged people to listen, to contribute, and eventually to change their point of view. Many of the (re-)presentations were entertaining, and theatrical in its best sense. They ranged from dances to decidedly neutral reports, yet, never failed to communicate some of the groups’ experiences. While the group conversations at times had not been without tensions, their presentations transmitted that at the end most groups had learned how to agree to disagree. The keyword “generosity” that Larry Richards once used, might best describe the atmosphere.

It is outside the scope of this review to address the particularities of the many questions and statements that were generated during the sessions. However, both themes generated some recurrent notions. Many questions related to theme 1 were about rules and how to play them. Theme 2 raised numerous notions related to language and metaphor. The material was collected on the conference’s online blog and served as a point of reference during the ongoing sessions. In future, it may serve as a basis for further clarification of the means as well as the relevance of cybernetic activity in contemporary times.

The conference also included presentations that followed the conventional conference structure. They took place during the late evenings of the first two conference days, and also during one lunch break. Interestingly, within the context of the conversational event, there was a perceptional shift to the presentations. It seemed almost as if the themes that people engaged with could be regarded as tools to express different kinds of conversational energies. The contextual change made the presentations truly enjoyable as an experience in an altered point of view.

The sessions closed with a tour of the EMPAC, guided by Johannes Goebel. He gave a detailed account of the building’s planning and construction processes that had generated a whole new research related to the implementation of a performance technology, flexible enough to address the needs of the future. The conference dinner was highlighted by a speech of Ernst von Glasersfeld. His well constructed talk provided also for a summary of the past days. If “knowledge”, as he says, “is and can only be built of concepts that we gather from our experiential world”, C:ADM 2010 international conference provided in fact for a singular opportunity to get to know what Glasersfeld calls a “cybernetic principle”: “having no fixed goal but being open to all the possibilities that come along”.

The workshop that followed the official conference gathered 20 participants for another three days, in order to re-address the conversations, to discuss the outcomes of the conference, and to develop from the material, what may again become a source of inspiration for further research and experience. People engaged in all kinds of activities that might sound strange to those who did not participate in the conference. These included folding paper boats, as well as prototyping paradoxes, and exercising magic knot tricks with ropes. The latter were facilitated by Louis Kauffman. Lev Ledit used the time of the workshop to edit a movie from the material that had been recorded by Judy Lombardi during the conference. It gives an insight into the playfulness and the attitude of tolerance that guided this conference and made it successful in creating an experimental laboratory for research. Both this video and the dinner speech by Ernst von Glasersfeld, as well as many other materials are available from the conference website [1].

References

1. See: https://past.asc-cybernetics.org/2010/.

2. See: Ranulph Glanville, “And He Was Magic”, in Gordon Pask, Philosopher Mechanic, edition echoraum, 2007.

The above review of the conference, written by Claudia Westermann and published in Leonardo, can also be found here and here (on pp. 24-26 in PDF).

C:ADM2010 by Lev Ledit and Judy Lombardi from ASC C:ADM2010 on Vimeo.

This is an initial rough cut.

1. cross-over processes: how we might cross-over between fields—metaphor, aesthetics, process? And what does it mean to be a trans-, inter- or meta-disciplinary subject?

2. actual and [...]]]> It has already been suggested that the first two conference themes are very similar and may be difficult to discuss separately. Combining them into one would make for two main conference themes:

1.
cross-over processes: how we might cross-over between fields—metaphor, aesthetics, process? And what does it mean to be a trans-, inter- or meta-disciplinary subject?

2.
actual and abstract: moving from actual to abstract is understood; but how do we move from abstract to actual? What are the relations between models that are conceptual, computational and physical? How are their differences productive?

Assuming four main time slots (31/07 PM, 01/08 AM, 01/08 PM, 02/08 AM) available for discussions, this could be organized to accommodate two time slots per theme: The first time slot each for divergent conversations (brainstorming, identifying issues) in larger groups (~15 participants), and the second time slot each for convergent conversations (proposals, ways forward) in smaller groups (2-4 participants).

Both the larger and the smaller group type could be asked to appoint a rapporteur who will present conversation outcomes at general meetings at the end of each time slot in say 20-30mins in the case of larger groups and 3-5mins in the case of smaller groups.

Please comment further!
Christiane M. Herr

1) What size should groups be?

2) Should groups remain fixed (in terms of the people in them, or should they change members? If so, how often?

3) How should [...]]]> We would like your suggestions on how the groups we will break into at C:ADM should be arranged. The following questions occur to us. Yyou may have more.

1) What size should groups be?

2) Should groups remain fixed (in terms of the people in them, or should they change members? If so, how often?

3) How should group membership be determined, in the first place?

4) How should moderators be chosen?

5) How should rapporteurs (who report back on the conversations in the plenary sessions) be chosen?

6) Should groups be homogenous or from mixed background?

This topic will remain open until midnight, Pacific Time, 12 July. (This is also the deadline by which to tell us if you wish to make a presentation.)

Thank you for your involvement,

Ranulph

The material you have submitted for C:ADM2010 is very exciting, and I look forward to meeting all of you later this month!

I am writing to introduce a number of new resources on the web site. You will have heard of some of this from Ranulph. Some key points:

LOG IN

Before accessing the [...]]]> Dear C:ADM2010 participants,

The material you have submitted for C:ADM2010 is very exciting, and I look forward to meeting all of you later this month!

I am writing to introduce a number of new resources on the web site. You will have heard of some of this from Ranulph. Some key points:

LOG IN

Before accessing the Blog and the Participants list, you need to log in. On any page, click Your profile in the left column or Log in on the lower right-hand side to go to the log in page. This procedure is to maintain security from scamming and to provide privacy amongst the group.

BLOG

https://past.asc-cybernetics.org/2010

Our website now has a blog. It is right on the front of the page at the above URL. From other pages on the site you can access it by clicking on the blog announcement in the News section in the right-hand pane. This is mainly for discussing how the conference should unfold. You are invited to contribute here and help us shape the conference using the blog. You are also invited to suggest your own topics, including general chat. You can add new posts to the blog via the [Posts/Add new] link near the top left-hand side on your profile page after logging in.

You can always get back to the C:ADM2010 website and blog from your profile page by clicking on the C:ADM2010 logo in the top left-hand corner of your profile page.

PARTICIPANTS LIST

You may have noticed that under People/Participants there is a (growing) list of confirmed and unconfirmed participants, where confirmed = paid.

The participants list (visible only to those who have a C:ADM2010 profile and log in) gives access to all participants’ biographical and contact details as well as to their Statements of Interest and abstracts of proposed papers. Visit

https://past.asc-cybernetics.org/2010/?page_id=129

I find this a fascinating list to browse! The Statements of Interest and the paper abstracts are particularly interesting. You are invited to review and discuss them on site by leaving comments directly underneath the respective texts.

PROFILES

Please make sure you enter all your data into your profile page and then click the ‘Update my Record’ button at the bottom of your profile page. Entering your short bio and ticking the events you want to attend will make planning and preparing the conference booklet much easier tasks. Some options are filling up fast.

All text accessible via the Participants page (Bios, Statements of Interest, proposed papers) are generated dynamically out of your input into your profile page. Any change you make to your submission will become effective and visible to others within the C:ADM2010 community automatically and immediately.

PHOTO

If you cannot see your PHOTO on your bio page, then you either have not uploaded a picture yet or you haven’t uploaded a picture of sufficient resolution. Please follow up accordingly and send me a quick note via email that you have done so (secretary@asc-cybernetics.org).

DRAFT PAPER SUBMISSION

Draft papers can submitted using another new feature on the profile page: a text field for your proposed papers’ full body (besides the abstract that still goes into the original text field). The text body field has a limit of 20,000 characters (including spaces etc.), to make the overall volume of material available to C:ADM2010 participants manageable. If you wish to show illustrations in your draft, please contact me at secretary@asc-cybernetics.org. I will be happy to help.

You can modify your bio, Statement of Interest and paper abstract in your profile at any time. Thus, authors can continuously improve proposed texts (taking into account comments received); and the organizers can prepare a conference booklet more easily.

PAYMENT

If you have not done so, please pay your registration fees via Acteva as soon as possible. To do so, go here:

http://www.acteva.com/booking.cfm?bevaID=198115

ASSISTANCE

If you experience difficulty logging into the site, I am happy to help any time. Some have noted that password recovery emails never arrive. This is probably due to spam filtering, which is out of our control. Again: Please contact me and we will sort things out easily.

Thanks and best regards,
Thomas Fischer (ASC secretary)

The management of EMPAC (our conference venue) will provide the possibility to run a video loop that contains all participant-supplied video material if [...]]]> Some participants have raised the question of whether they can supply video material to be screened during C:ADM2010. Despite the technical challenges involved in this we are keen to make this possible.

The management of EMPAC (our conference venue) will provide the possibility to run a video loop that contains all participant-supplied video material if we compile it into one single file. Therefore, there are strict technical format requirements for supplied video materials that must be fulfilled precisely as detailed in the FAQ. Video material supplied in other formats will be very unlikely to be screened.

Video files should be made available to Jennifer Kanary Nikolov(a) at jenniferkanary@yahoo.com, who will handle all communication about them, as well as compile them into loops.